UK science minister in the stocks

There was a long wait last night before an audience of mostly young scientists was allowed to file into the venue for a debate with the UK's science minister.

The minister's minders told me that it was to allow for a sound check.

But I found the delay before the London event ominous, as if a gallows was being prepared for a public execution. And so it proved.
At the outset of the debate on "Blue skies ahead? The prospects for UK science" at the Wellcome Trust, Paul Drayson found himself in a pincer movement of up-and-coming scientists.

On one side of the minister sat chairman Brian Cox of the University of Manchester, an outspoken critic of government policy, notably regarding the funding of the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), and Victorian sewer expert cum freelance astronomer Colin Stuart.

On the other sat Suzie Sheehy, who is studying for a DPhil at the University of Oxford, science teacher Alom Shaha and Lewis Dartnell of University College London, who is seeking life on Mars.

Drayson opened by declaring, "Britain is a world leader in science. Tonight's debate with the next generation of UK scientists will be a lively discussion on how we keep it that way."

The key point made by Drayson, who gets full marks for facing a potential lynch mob, was that to win the battle with other ministries for limited government funding, there has to be a harder sell by scientists when it comes to defining the effect of research on society and the economy. "Unless we think about that impact, future science ministers not going to be in such a strong position to argue about vital importance of science."

The first serious onslaught on his lordship's drive to weigh up the effect of science was prefaced by what sounded like a hiss of hot air.

I thought that a high-tech BS detector had gone off but it turned out be the sound of a door closing as a late arrival slipped in.

"Oh, come on minister!" bellowed John Dainton, founding director of the Cockcroft Institute, University of Liverpool.

He pointed out how the difficulty of assessing the effects of science using the example of Ernest Rutherford, who famously said that the prospect of nuclear power was "moonshine".

The minister said that the Rutherford example was an example of forward-looking crystal-ball gazing and that the higher education funding councils were conducting consultation and pilot studies to look at retrospective measures of effect.

Dainton, who told me later he thought that the minister is "totally confused", replied, "We have always done that, with the greatest respect," and Stuart complained that the minister was rebranding an old idea.

Dainton also made a wider point, echoing comments on the relentless government drive to turn scientists into entrepreneurs made at the debate by Ken Peach of the University of Oxford and Royal Holloway, University of London: "Without fail industrialists all say that the government is steering the wrong people, namely the scientists, to be what they rightly see as second-rate entrepreneurs, and using more and more of the science budget to the detriment of national science."

After a bad tempered skirmish about the enduring funding woes of the STFC, a second line of attack on government policy came from Shaha, a self-confessed "science groupie", who complained that science education had been dumbed down.

In fact, he said, the current curriculum is now so dumb that many private schools have abandoned GCSEs as unfit for purpose, creating what he called "educational apartheid".

He added that the view of front-line science teachers had been ignored when it came to revising the "deeply flawed" curriculum.

In his concluding remarks, Drayson admitted that Shaha's attack had made the biggest impression. "We are working on it, but maybe not fast enough."

Nick Dusic of the Campaign for Science and Engineering told me that the big issue for the research community was the initiative to measure research effects and whether it is down to how individuals do science or a way to help the scientific community make a stronger pitch for government funding.

"The government has been very confused on this," he said. "Drayson could turn this around if he separated these two issues."

"It is great that students and teachers were able to put science education up the agenda. There are serious issues that need to be dealt with in both the content and provision of science education."

The social media site Twitter played a key role in the genesis of last night's debate. It was Stuart's exchange of tweets with Drayson about UK science's future which evolved into the event, which can be found via the hashtag #sciblue.

The discussion was organised by the Department for Business, Innovations and Skills together with Times Higher Education and the Wellcome Trust.

Many societies have, possibly unwittingly passed control of science to politicians. While some politicians may be effective and well meaning it seems that we will get unsuitable people in these roles.

These unsuitables can destroy at least decades of good work, often unknowingly. After all they are sometimes finely tuned liars, whose natural mode of operation is "if the facts give the wrong conclusion, change the facts".

It is good for a society to have alternatives in education and science funding. It raises the chance that the society will at least produce enough decent scientits and survive well. It might also be wise to explore ways to filter out bad politicians and try to eliminate their destructive impact.

M Burns
on December 3, 2009 11:03 AM

A very good point about remebering to state the value of research, for example the currently planned "Marco-Polo" asteroid grab will grab grammes of material to determine how planets formed etc. a noble goal but one that will not inspire another mission back there because it's just science for the sake of science.
This mission is one of many struggling for funding from ESA, however if you stated the obvious and told some lagre mining companies that there may be trillions of tonnes of metals/resources out there do you not think they would be willing to pitch in and help fund an trip to determine an asteroids worth?
One last small rant.....many people are obviously aware that for the last 40 years since the moon landing we have pretty much stayed in Low earth orbit, and the cost of a lot of missions is a rocket to get us up there, and competing for a launch window. This begs the obvious question,
why are we not launching rockets from the moon?
Just some things for people to think about....